Published AAO appeal decisions

Infectious disease physician with medical training and fellowship sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two already met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed that original contributions did not demonstrate major field significance; citation counts and expert letters insufficient. Evidence collectively showed no sustained acclaim or position among field elite.

A post-doctoral research associate in entomology sought NIW for EB-2 classification. The AAO held the proposed endeavor lacks sufficient specificity and documented broader impact; prior publication citations and speaking engagements do not establish that future teaching, mentoring, and research would impact the field nationally rather than only serve local students and institutions.

Medical epidemiologist sought EB-2 advanced degree with NIW to advance public health preparedness and emergency response focusing on vaccine preventable diseases. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met first Dhanasar prong but failed second prong; evidence submitted post-filing was inadmissible, and petitioner did not rebut director's finding of insufficient positioning.

Physician seeking NIW under EB-2 for proposed work as medical scientist conducting disease research. AAO held first prong met but second prong failed because petitioner is not well positioned to conduct medical research given background only in medical practice. Substantial material change between initial and revised proposed endeavors also demonstrated lack of positioning.

Postdoctoral biochemistry researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria despite claiming four additional ones on appeal. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

Public health specialist seeks NIW for work in immunization, disease prevention, and maternal health. AAO held while public health field has merit, petitioner failed to identify specific projects or demonstrate prospective work extends beyond employers to impact public health field broadly at national level.

A biochemist and molecular biologist sought an NIW under EB-2. The AAO withdrew the Director's finding on the second prong and dismissed because she failed to demonstrate being well-positioned to advance her research endeavor. Education, citations, and peer review alone were insufficient without evidence of sustained funding or primary role in grant awards.

A medical scientist seeks NIW for research on diseases and therapeutic development. First Dhanasar prong met: research has substantial merit and national importance. Second prong failed: no evidence of financial support, entity interest, or positioning to advance the proposed endeavor in the United States.

University employer sponsored campus biological safety officer for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met three of ten evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. Final merits analysis found record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage status at top of biological safety field.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.

Cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Petition was approved then revoked. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions prong. Record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; work was in training capacities at prestigious institutions.

A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Cancer researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; Director found two met. Petitioner on appeal asserted three additional criteria and high salary. AAO found only two criteria satisfied overall and dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

Research scientist in molecular virology claimed four criteria. AAO found three met: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. However, appeal dismissed because evidence as a whole does not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.